The use of first person in many essays focusing upon place raises questions regarding the purpose of such a structure, and its place in historical enquiry. Place remains such an engaging yet fluid construct, where an individual’s perception of place is just as important as the patchwork of social and cultural influences which constructs it. With this in mind, the first person construct can create more dialogue, ferment discussion and shine a more insightful light upon the nature of specific places. Yet too much can be detrimental, and while the first person construct remains a medium which is suited to the essay of place, it must never subvert the focus of the enquiry, by replacing it with a focus upon the self. The structure has potential to de-legitimise historical debate, just as much as it could inform it.
The purposes of using the first person construct in an essay on place are many and varied. On the surface, it allows for the reader to engage with a personality, enabling them to relate to the author, become more involved in the subject matter, and more easily access the information the author provides. By creating a human voice which is involved in the subject matter, the reader can more readily engage and assimilate the varied aspects of place. Although this could be argued to be done through the classic dispassionate observer method so often employed in history, the ease of learning through immersion can be likened to learning a language. Learning by the rote method can be advantageous, but if you immerse yourself in the culture, you will pick up nuances which are hidden to the removed and objective observer. Both Jamaica Kinkard and Annie Dillard are a case in point here. Through the personalisation of their subjects, the cultural and personal reflections which are obtained only by living in the area are conveyed to the viewer. Kinkard states this explicitly, as his book introduces what a casual observer or tourist observes, and then what he as a local to the area would see. It demonstrates how the meaning locals attribute to place through history, time, culture and personal memory is lost when degrees of separation are introduced. If we are to create a more complete analysis of place, this is an invaluable resource.
Yet if you look under the surface, there are many aspects of the usage of the first person construct which cause problems for historical enquiry, and result in an overwhelming call for moderation. Although Ryder calls for subjectivity without theoretical blandness, I have to agree with Halttunen when she says this form of essay writing which often strays into the autobiographical, while important in laying bare the intentions and identity of the author, is best left to the introduction. Her statement that we can have self evaluation with the omniscient author of generic historical essays is also an important point. The enquiry into the nature of place is multifaceted and often contains subjective definitions and components e.g. culture, what meaning is assigned to and how. Therefore it is still important not to become so engrossed in self and subjectivity that the historical enquiry becomes a footnote. Bobbi Allen is a good example here, as I feel that the focus upon his own history and his own personal experiences detract from the important message he has regarding shared views of place.
Richard White raises an important point, noting that at some point historical essays become historical sources in themselves. In this way, having an introduction which does relate to the self through the first person allows for an easier understanding of what biases and interpretations the author has brought to their work. Yet, it’s still not certain what the relevant information is, and in this way the use of a first person autobiographical introduction may serve little more than the dispassionate observer version. What the first person version does is allow us to more easily suspend our belief that the author is just an observer who brings no previous assumptions to their analysis. We more readily understand that the person behind the print is human. As Graham Good notes, the truth of an essay is a limited truth, and is defined by the individual and the time.
The specificity of a historical analysis of place using the first person is great. The author openly brings more of their own self reflection to their analysis, and this further defines and limits their generality, even when only considering a single place. Yet, multiple sources on a single place may create such an expansive patchwork as to be an invaluable source for a historian wishing to conduct a dispassionate assessment of a specific place.
References
Allan, Bobbi, ‘The Richness of Our Native Soil’ in John Cameron, ed., Changing Places: Re-imagining Australia (Australia: Longueville Books, 2003), pp. 149-159.
Dillard, Annie, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (London: Cape, 1975).
Good, Graham, The Observing Self: Rediscovering the Essay (London: Routledge, 1988).
Hattunen, Karen, ‘Self, Subject, and the “Barefoot Historian” in Roundtable Discussion on ‘Self and Subject’’, The Journal of American History 89, no.1 (June 2002).
Kinkaid, Jamaica, A Small Place (Toronto: Collins Publishers, 1988).
Russell, David, ‘A Psychological Perspective on Place’, in John Cameron ed., Changing Places: Re-imagining Australia (Australia: Longueville Books, 2003), pp. 149-159.
White, Richard, ‘Here is the Problem: An Introduction’ in Roundtable Discussion on ‘Self and Subject’, The Journal of American History 89, no.1 (June 2002).
Comments
Ethan, this is a really thoughtful discussion. It picks out many of the key issues we discussed in class and provides your own argument about the use of the first person in historical writing on place. You made effective use of your readings in making that argument. The examples of Kincaid and Allen’s work gave a particularly good grounding to the points you made.
The main thing you could have improved on here, I think, is the style of this piece. You moved a little unevenly at times between a formal and more informal style. You began in a very formal and densely-worded way, talking of the first person as a ‘structure’ and a ‘construct’, but by the end of your discussion you were writing more loosely (‘The specificity of a historical analysis of place is great’). For your essay, I think you should try to write a little more fluidly, as you did in your last paragraph here. Read your work aloud and try to make sure it flows well when you do so. It should more closely approximate what you would say if you were holding an intelligent conversation about place and striving to be articulate as you did so. I look forward to reading what you come up with.
Posted by: Melissa Bellanta | May 9, 2007 12:20 PM
Ethan, I agree that you've used the articles really well to argue your point, especially considering how many articles you used. I didn't notice your expression was unbalanced however but that might be because I think I have the same problem. As a general rule, I've started to read my work repeatedly after I've finished to make sure the expression is consistent.
I really liked your emphasis on the human voice the first person construct can create; this more personal perspective is ofcourse always unique. But I think you're also correct about the problems associated with the usage of the first person construct, it's such a balancing act. I think the introduction is a good place for acknowledging one's personal view on the specific topic instead of the whole essay becoming an autobiographical accoint. As you said Ethan, this can come across as a dispassionate observer version but i think it really depends on the writer's motives for creating the essay in the first place because an autobiographical introduction may be enough but the writer may also want to deliberately be very personal.
Posted by: Kate Doyle | May 20, 2007 04:48 PM
Ethan, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your discussion piece as you eloquently and clearly articulated the salient positive and negative ramifications of using the first person in the essay of place. (As an aside, I found that I needed to read a few of your sentences rather carefully to understand the dense terminology, and thought it a bit odd that you concluded the paper using the colloquial word ‘great’ – but this is not to detract from the reflective, analytical and mature perspective you brought to the paper.) I liked your premise that ‘while the first person construct remains a medium which is suited to the essay of place, it must never subvert the focus of the enquiry, by replacing it with a focus upon the self.’ This is my main criticism of essays of place that use the first person ad nauseam. Some of these stylistic essays seem to wallow in trivial and autobiographical excess. They leave the reader confused as to what the historical argument is, when so many frivolous and insignificant details are included in the narrative-like ‘essay.’ As you mentioned, such essays have the ‘potential to de-legitimise historical debate’ and should not be seen to represent or devalue the otherwise high standard of writing that is characteristic of other thoughtful essays of place. Subjectivity when used appropriately, can be a most valuable historical tool, however, it should not become the principle feature of an historical argument. (Such subjectivity is more aptly termed fiction in my opinion).
The benefit gained from an author articulating their personal biases and thoughts in the opening paragraph, is that the reader is made aware of the author’s insider perspective and can therefore better appreciate the discussion that personally engages with the subject matter while being consciously aware of any subjective tendencies of the author. Ironically, we are all insiders in one respect or another, and should therefore not dismiss history that is specifically articulated to have been written by an insider. This subjective style of writing history has the potential to enormously expand the readership of history, by making the subject matter, like place, multi-dimensional, incredibly interesting and easier to read. It is the degree to which authors employ this technique that differentiate the tedious from the inspiring.
I completely agree with your concluding remarks that combining a selection of subjective sources on a single place may contribute enormously to historical analysis by producing a multi-layered and deeply insightful perspective on a particular place. (I’m not sure how practical/ practiced this idea is though, as most people who engage in this unique style of writing, usually write about a particularly personal and individual place – which makes multiple analyses of the place hard to come by.) However, when you argue that this approach will enable historians ‘to conduct a dispassionate assessment of a specific place’ couldn’t they also be inspired to create an emotionally poignant analysis of the place? It just seems that if the only valuable purpose of using the subjective first person in historical writing is to ultimately produce ‘dispassionate assessments of place’ then the style is pointless as it only reinforces the stale notion that history is an objective and detached discipline.
Posted by: Anna Sambell | June 12, 2007 12:20 AM